

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

New report details USMCA’s shortcomings and how to put workers first in North American trade
Despite pledging to fix the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), President Trump’s trade policies have failed to put North American workers first, according to a new Economic Policy Institute report.
Trump replaced NAFTA with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in 2020. But Trump’s USMCA has not fixed the intense downward pressure on jobs and wages that has plagued U.S. manufacturing economies in the generation since NAFTA.
Manufacturers across the country have shed or furloughed more than 576,000 jobs since he signed the agreement, EPI’s analysis shows. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has more than doubled from $125 billion in 2020 to $263 billion in 2025.
In the critical automotive industry that Trump said he wanted to restore, imports of motor vehicles and parts from Mexico nearly doubled following USMCA, rising from $196 billion in 2019 to $274 billion in 2024. During the same time period, light-duty vehicle imports from Mexico rose 36% while imports of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles increased a whopping 256%.
Despite novel labor reforms in USMCA—some worth preserving and expanding—the overall wage gap in manufacturing continues to drive corporate decisions to exploit Mexico’s low-wage, low-standard labor environment. Mexican manufacturing wages are just $2.76 an hour—a mere 10% of U.S. manufacturing wages. This has created a race to the bottom in labor and pollution standards for producing goods that can compete duty free in North American markets.
USMCA also left a gaping loophole for Chinese manufacturers to exploit duty-free access to North American markets without reciprocal market access for U.S. manufacturers. Chinese firms expanded their direct investment footprint in Mexico by as much as 288% through 2023.
Now USMCA faces a sunset review, requiring all three countries to agree by July 1, 2026, to extend the agreement another 16 years. Trump and his negotiators should use this opportunity to cement a model that protects workers while preserving the mutual benefits of trade. This requires stronger regional and labor value content rules, closing loopholes to unfairly traded foreign content, and expanding cooperation to enforce strong rules across all three countries.
“Trump seized on dissatisfaction with NAFTA and its devastation on U.S. manufacturing. But his USMCA created more problems than it fixed. Today, the pressure on manufacturing jobs and deterioration in the trade balance with Mexico are worse than before USMCA. The ongoing failures of USMCA necessitate significant reform and renegotiation to truly make a North American economy that puts workers first,” said EPI senior economist Adam S. Hersh, who authored the report.
EPI is an independent, nonprofit think tank that researches the impact of economic trends and policies on working people in the United States. EPI's research helps policymakers, opinion leaders, advocates, journalists, and the public understand the bread-and-butter issues affecting ordinary Americans.
(202) 775-8810DNC Chairman Ken Martin accused Trump of trying to "bully and cheat his way through a midterm election that he knows Republicans will lose."
The Democratic National Committee is suing the Trump administration and alleging that it is threatening the integrity of the 2026 midterm elections.
In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the DNC revealed that the Trump administration hasn't complied with any of the 11 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests the Democratic committee made last year regarding any plans for the "potential deployment of federal agents and troops to polling places, drop boxes, and election offices."
The complaint argued that these FOIA requests were necessary given the "repeat threats to free and fair elections from President Trump and his administration," and accused the administration of violating the law by refusing to fulfill them.
The lawsuit also provided extensive documentation of President Donald Trump and other administration officials making threats and taking actions to potentially disrupt voting in the 2026 elections, including Trump in January saying he regretted not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in the wake of the 2020 presidential election; White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt subsequently saying that the administration "can't guarantee" federal law enforcement won't be deployed to polling places; and the FBI seizure of 2020 election ballots in Fulton County, Georgia.
The DNC said the court must now enforce FOIA requirements "to ensure that the American people obtain timely knowledge of potential threats to free and fair elections and to enable the DNC to take appropriate action to ensure voting rights are protected."
DNC Chairman Ken Martin accused Trump of trying to "bully and cheat his way through a midterm election that he knows Republicans will lose," then added that "we won’t let him."
"The DNC will stand on the side of voters," continued Martin, "and use every tool in our arsenal to stop voter suppression and intimidation before it can even begin."
The DNC lawsuit follows reporting from Politico in February revealing that Democratic state attorneys general have been conducting "war games" aimed at combating Trump administration moves to tamper with the 2026 elections.
Among the many possibilities that the AGs are preparing for are that the Trump administration orders the seizure of ballots and voting machines, defunds the post office to block the delivery of mail-in ballots, and sends federal immigration enforcement officials or even the US military to patrol polling places.
"Americans can't afford their groceries, they can't afford their medicine, they can't afford the cost of living, and yet we're dropping a billion dollars of bombs, it seems, every day in Iran," said one Senate Democrat.
The Trump administration is quietly pursuing a regulatory change that would strip federal nutrition assistance from an estimated 6 million low-income Americans—including nearly two million children—as it spends billions on an illegal, open-ended war on Iran that has killed more than a thousand people and plunged the global economy into chaos.
The change sought by the US Department of Agriculture would curb broad-based categorical eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Broad-based categorical eligibility allows states to automatically qualify residents for SNAP if they are already enrolled in other aid programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, thus reducing administrative hurdles and costs.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimated in a blog post published late last month—the day before President Donald Trump announced the joint US-Israeli assault on Iran—that gutting broad-based categorical eligibility would likely strip modest federal food aid from around 6 million people, including nearly 2 million children.
"The people losing access to food assistance from SNAP, school meals, and [the Women, Infants, and Children Program] would mainly be working families, older adults, and people with disabilities," the think tank noted. "In other words, the change would primarily harm groups that federal and state policymakers from across the political spectrum have long sought to help: people who work but are living near poverty; older adults and people with disabilities with low, fixed incomes; and people trying to build modest savings in order to become more economically independent."
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that restricting broad-based categorical eligibility would result in roughly $11 billion in savings over a 10-year period—or just over $1 billion a year.
The Trump administration is currently spending around $1 billion per day in US taxpayer money waging war on Iran—a price tag that would be enough to cover the daily costs of SNAP benefits for the more than 40 million Americans on the program.
Over just the first two days of the military onslaught, the Pentagon "burned through $5.6 billion worth of munitions," according to figures reported late Monday by the Washington Post.
"Americans can't afford their groceries, they can't afford their medicine, they can't afford the cost of living, and yet we're dropping a billion dollars of bombs, it seems, every day in Iran," US Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in a CNN appearance on Monday.
During Trump's first White House term, his administration proposed a rule that would have curtailed states' option to use broad-based categorical eligibility for SNAP, but the rule was never finalized and the Biden administration later rescinded it.
The Trump Agriculture Department revived the effort late last year, submitting a rule purportedly aimed at ensuring that "categorical eligibility is extended only to households that have sufficiently demonstrated eligibility."
"The end result," CBPP's Katie Bergh recently warned, "will be more hunger and hardship."
The Trump administration's new push comes months after the president signed into law the largest SNAP cuts in US history—around $187 billion over the next decade.
Trump bragged about the cuts during his State of the Union address last month, declaring that his administration has "lifted 2.4 million Americans" off SNAP—a euphemistic description of kicking people off the critical anti-poverty program.
Last week, Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee advanced a farm bill that would do nothing to mitigate the reverberating impacts of the Trump-GOP SNAP cuts.
"Instead of prioritizing the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans, the committee failed to reverse course and continued down a path that will strip food from the tables of children, veterans, caregivers, older adults, and people experiencing homelessness," said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center.
"Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency," said an immigrant rights advocate who sued the federal government.
Immigrant rights advocates on Monday hailed a federal judge's ruling that blocked significant portions of President Donald Trump's proposed policy changes regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had been scheduled to go into effect this week and would have "eviscerated noncitizens’ right to appeal decisions in their immigration cases," according to rights groups.
In the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Randolph Moss issued a late-night order on Sunday calling Trump's rule titled “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” which was proposed last month, “a fast-track mechanism for disposing of the vast majority” of immigration court appeals.
The proposed rule would have reduced the time immigrants have to file appeals from 30 days to just 10 days; required summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) 15 permanent members voted to accept the case for review within 10 days; and permitted case dismissals before records were transmitted to the board.
Moss said the administration had violated the legal requirement for the government to notify the public of its proposed changes to a federal rule and provide an opportunity for public comment. The Trump administration could potentially try again to change the immigration appeals process.
Laura St. John, legal director for the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, said the ruling "keeps in place a basic, yet critical, protection for immigrants facing removal: the ability to appeal their case."
"Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated, all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda."
"As the administration continues to try to deport as many people as they can quickly and often without a fair day in court, it is critical for everyone to have the opportunity to file an appeal," said St. John. "Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency.”
The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project is one of several groups that sued the administration over the proposed rule, with Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, and the National Immigrant Justice Center representing the plaintiffs.
St. John argued in court that it can take at least a week for advocacy groups to prepare materials and file an appeal to the BIA after it has determined a noncitizen can be deported. Forcing immigrants and their legal teams to file an appeal within 10 days would leave many without any "meaningful review" of their cases, St. John said.
While the Executive Office for Immigration Review claimed the new policy would swiftly reduce the backlog of cases before the BIA, Moss wrote in his opinion, the plaintiffs argued that the provisions would "operate in combination to deprive almost all affected parties of the administrative appellate review 'that they were previously entitled to.'"
Erez Reuveni, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, said the decision "makes it clear that the Trump-Vance administration cannot play games with the immigration appeals system to eliminate basic due process and fast-track deportations."
Reuveni is a former Department of Justice lawyer who revealed in a whistleblower complaint last year that DOJ staffers had been advised by the Trump administration to ignore court orders in order to swiftly carry out Trump's mass deportation agenda.
“Once again, no matter how hard this administration tries to hide its cruel and unlawful actions behind an ‘immigration policy,’ a federal court has made clear that the government must follow the law and cannot strip people of their basic rights," he said. "We will continue representing our plaintiffs in court to defend their rights and hold this administration accountable.”
The Department of Homeland Security has not regularly disclosed the number of people it is deporting under the Trump administration; internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement data showed last year that more than 10,000 people were being deported per month.
Moss' ruling came less than a month after US District Judge Sunshine Sykes in the Central District of California threw out a BIA decision that endorsed the administration's policy of denying bond hearings to immigrants with no criminal records who have been detained. A federal appeals court issued a temporary pause on that ruling last Friday after the White House appealed.
Mary Georgevich, a senior litigation attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said Moss' ruling was "an important win in the face of an administration that is intent on dismantling our immigration system at any cost, including betraying our country’s shared values of the importance of due process and access to counsel."
"Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated," she said, "all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda."